NSW EPA trying to put the brakes on rail freight

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 24 Feb 2020 12:09
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Call me a cynic but is this move funded or influenced again by the road freight lobby ?

Why would any EPA target an already efficient transport mode on emissions when you have 100,000+ least efficient trucks on the roads ?

Beyond belief.

NSW EPA trying to put the brakes on rail freight

Sponsored advertisement

  DCook Junior Train Controller

It's even worse when you look at the future situation for SSR as only two of their 61 locomotives will meet the criteria
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/premier-on-track-for-a-problem-in-train-brawl
  viaprojects Train Controller

Call me a cynic but is this move funded or influenced again by the road freight lobby ?
freightgate


a clean up of the rail system ... considering all the locos are ex SRA stock and the NSW government don't supply or have any modern loco's to sell ...
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Call me a cynic but is this move funded or influenced again by the road freight lobby ?

Why would any EPA target an already efficient transport mode on emissions when you have 100,000+ least efficient trucks on the roads ?

Beyond belief.

NSW EPA trying to put the brakes on rail freight
freightgate
I don't think so, I think its been mentioned here before that the road industry doesn't get away with what the rail industry has been allowed for decades in regard to emissions. For example we still have diesels emitting black exhaust in suburban areas like an old steamer.

This is from 8 years ago, but do we really want this in todays world?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzQ4DJ6sH68



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SELd-tFdmyA

I think its fair to say many of these locos need to be retired or their performance dramatically improved.
  a6et Minister for Railways

While a bit off topic, I find it wonderful to watch the Sydney 7 news at night, usually the 5pm one, the back ground screen behind the reader that has a wonderful view of Circular Quay and the overseas passenger terminal, well one of them anyway.  There sits a huge ship that spews out fumes from its funnel, fully visible as the news is read, most ships are berthed there for at least 8-10 hours some much longer but replacements are soon arriving.

The ships engines have to be kept running to supply power for the whole of the ships operations, kitchen, theatres, desal plant, air conditioners and the list goes on, along with the little put puts that do the harbour run and others that dock further afield around the harbour with their engines going, how much is looked into by the EPA people as to how much pollution is put into the air from these salty vessels?  

Watching the news with them in the background screen its obvious to see as to how thick it is with some ships and not as much on others, but they all emit the diesel fumes constantly.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
While a bit off topic, I find it wonderful to watch the Sydney 7 news at night, usually the 5pm one, the back ground screen behind the reader that has a wonderful view of Circular Quay and the overseas passenger terminal, well one of them anyway.  There sits a huge ship that spews out fumes from its funnel, fully visible as the news is read, most ships are berthed there for at least 8-10 hours some much longer but replacements are soon arriving.

The ships engines have to be kept running to supply power for the whole of the ships operations, kitchen, theatres, desal plant, air conditioners and the list goes on, along with the little put puts that do the harbour run and others that dock further afield around the harbour with their engines going, how much is looked into by the EPA people as to how much pollution is put into the air from these salty vessels?  

Watching the news with them in the background screen its obvious to see as to how thick it is with some ships and not as much on others, but they all emit the diesel fumes constantly.
a6et
Ship emissions isn't going as unnoticed as some may think, but otherwise I agree and they should be fined if in breech.

At work we were told the EU now bans ships from using lower more polluting grades of fuel oil at sea compared to near the coast or in port.

Google "passenger ship emissions" and you get photos of smoking passenger ships in otherwise pristine environments, so I expect things will change there also.

I expect scenes like this will increasingly be placed under scrutiny and cruise ship companies start to market themselves on emissions as well as the usual everything else.
https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/04/19/each-day-a-cruise-ship-emits-as-much-pollution-as-a-million-cars/
  ADB Locomotive Driver

It's even worse when you look at the future situation for SSR as only two of their 61 locomotives will meet the criteria
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/premier-on-track-for-a-problem-in-train-brawl
DCook

SSR's fleet list includes 2 x BRM class (built 2012-13); 2 x SSR class (2014) and 6 x RL class (2005-10). So does this mean even relatively modern locos are in trouble?

Then again, maybe SSR are over-egging the pudding? From the article: "It would cost Southern Shorthaul $21 million to upgrade the trains to meet the standards being proposed by the EPA within five to 10 years, but (SSR Director Jason) Ferguson’s trains should have another 25 year life span as they are."

Really, Jason? Most of SSR's fleet seem to have been built around 1970. Do we expect locos already 50 yrs old in 2020 to run for another 25 years? OK, the Bs, GMs etc are in their 60s, so they may well make it to to 75 (I hope so), but are there many industries where expecting to operate equipment for 75 years is the norm?

Don't get me wrong. As a gunzel, I love SSR and wish them all the best. I also worry that too-stringent guidelines will bar fledgling operators and leave only one or two big outfits like PN having State governments over a barrel, but I wonder how much the above article is political point-scoring.
  ADB Locomotive Driver

RTT_Rules:I See your smoky NRs and raise you H3 and H5 climbing out of Donnelly (starts at 7:45). Vid provided by "Greensleeves94". (I can't see any copyright claim so I assume it's OK to post it. I'll remove it if it isn't.)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti188XMh2U

OK, it's in Vic, but this raises the question of what happens to heritage operators? Sure, they'll probably get a waiver to run a tour, but how many? Will it be worth some NSW outfits starting new restoration projects if the loco(s) MIGHT only get permission to run once or twice a year?

Hmmm.....
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT_Rules:I See your smoky NRs and raise you H3 and H5 climbing out of Donnelly (starts at 7:45). Vid provided by "Greensleeves94". (I can't see any copyright claim so I assume it's OK to post it. I'll remove it if it isn't.)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti188XMh2U

OK, it's in Vic, but this raises the question of what happens to heritage operators? Sure, they'll probably get a waiver to run a tour, but how many? Will it be worth some NSW outfits starting new restoration projects if the loco(s) MIGHT only get permission to run once or twice a year?

Hmmm.....
ADB
If its in Youtube you don't need to worry about breech of copyright as Youtube has all the data in each video's link.

Heritage operators should be able to get waivers, like they have for steam. I doubt they'd be limited to twice a year.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
It's even worse when you look at the future situation for SSR as only two of their 61 locomotives will meet the criteria
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/premier-on-track-for-a-problem-in-train-brawl

SSR's fleet list includes 2 x BRM class (built 2012-13); 2 x SSR class (2014) and 6 x RL class (2005-10). So does this mean even relatively modern locos are in trouble?

Then again, maybe SSR are over-egging the pudding? From the article: "It would cost Southern Shorthaul $21 million to upgrade the trains to meet the standards being proposed by the EPA within five to 10 years, but (SSR Director Jason) Ferguson’s trains should have another 25 year life span as they are."

Really, Jason? Most of SSR's fleet seem to have been built around 1970. Do we expect locos already 50 yrs old in 2020 to run for another 25 years? OK, the Bs, GMs etc are in their 60s, so they may well make it to to 75 (I hope so), but are there many industries where expecting to operate equipment for 75 years is the norm?

Don't get me wrong. As a gunzel, I love SSR and wish them all the best. I also worry that too-stringent guidelines will bar fledgling operators and leave only one or two big outfits like PN having State governments over a barrel, but I wonder how much the above article is political point-scoring.
ADB
Every other industry is required to clean up its act over time as standards are raised, why not rail?

As the loco's age the engines can be replaced with more efficient cleaner burning engines.

I doubt very much seeing locos exceed 40-50 years in commercial operation will be a common occurrence, perhaps the lack of Env controls in the past has allowed this to occur rather than simply phased out.

As many of these engines are used in peak season type service and banking engines where its not viable to have a $5m loco I think there should be wavers applied for their limited use to certain tasks and locations provided the engines are maintained which in many cases in teh various video's its clear they haven't been and for me this is the biggest issue. The EPA should be placing random engine emission monitoring equipment on the locos.

I don't think its political point scoring, I think its very much about time. Some of the locos's I've seen going through the suburbs over the years the operators should have been hit with steep fines with black soot being pumped into peoples back yards. There are somethings you just don't do and the operators have got away for far too long.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland

.
Every other industry is required to clean up its act over time as standards are raised, why not rail?

As the loco's age the engines can be replaced with more efficient cleaner burning engines.

I doubt very much seeing locos exceed 40-50 years in commercial operation will be a common occurrence, perhaps the lack of Env controls in the past has allowed this to occur rather than simply phased out.

As many of these engines are used in peak season type service and banking engines where its not viable to have a $5m loco I think there should be wavers applied for their limited use to certain tasks and locations provided the engines are maintained which in many cases in teh various video's its clear they haven't been and for me this is the biggest issue. The EPA should be placing random engine emission monitoring equipment on the locos.

I don't think its political point scoring, I think its very much about time. Some of the locos's I've seen going through the suburbs over the years the operators should have been hit with steep fines with black soot being pumped into peoples back yards. There are somethings you just don't do and the operators have got away for far too long.
RTT_Rules
Public Image will quickly become a powerful driver.

Does SSR want to get on the wrong side of the environmental coherence public with dinosaur locomotives bleaching black and grey soot, the bad environmental Image may cost them a lot more that $21 Million (plus the soot Is un / poorly burnt fuel going to waste)
  Radioman Chief Train Controller

It's even worse when you look at the future situation for SSR as only two of their 61 locomotives will meet the criteria
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/premier-on-track-for-a-problem-in-train-brawl

SSR's fleet list includes 2 x BRM class (built 2012-13); 2 x SSR class (2014) and 6 x RL class (2005-10). So does this mean even relatively modern locos are in trouble?

Then again, maybe SSR are over-egging the pudding? From the article: "It would cost Southern Shorthaul $21 million to upgrade the trains to meet the standards being proposed by the EPA within five to 10 years, but (SSR Director Jason) Ferguson’s trains should have another 25 year life span as they are."

Really, Jason? Most of SSR's fleet seem to have been built around 1970. Do we expect locos already 50 yrs old in 2020 to run for another 25 years? OK, the Bs, GMs etc are in their 60s, so they may well make it to to 75 (I hope so), but are there many industries where expecting to operate equipment for 75 years is the norm?

Don't get me wrong. As a gunzel, I love SSR and wish them all the best. I also worry that too-stringent guidelines will bar fledgling operators and leave only one or two big outfits like PN having State governments over a barrel, but I wonder how much the above article is political point-scoring.
Every other industry is required to clean up its act over time as standards are raised, why not rail?

As the loco's age the engines can be replaced with more efficient cleaner burning engines.

I doubt very much seeing locos exceed 40-50 years in commercial operation will be a common occurrence, perhaps the lack of Env controls in the past has allowed this to occur rather than simply phased out.

As many of these engines are used in peak season type service and banking engines where its not viable to have a $5m loco I think there should be wavers applied for their limited use to certain tasks and locations provided the engines are maintained which in many cases in teh various video's its clear they haven't been and for me this is the biggest issue. The EPA should be placing random engine emission monitoring equipment on the locos.

I don't think its political point scoring, I think its very much about time. Some of the locos's I've seen going through the suburbs over the years the operators should have been hit with steep fines with black soot being pumped into peoples back yards. There are somethings you just don't do and the operators have got away for far too long.
RTT_Rules
Hello All,

1 / ships in Australian waters are now required to use low sulphur or light diesel fuel, ( as purchased at the local petrol station ) as opposed to heavy diesel, ( once called Bunker C ? ), that is according to the Ship's Engineering Officer of a recent South Seas cruise liner that my wife and i were on.

2 / it is noticeable that US railroads will not buy new diesel locomotives as they are far too expensive when equipped to the US equivalent Of Euro 4 emissions standards, hence GE selling its diesel locomotive division to Wabco, and developing an electric locomotive in lieu.

3 / whilst I broadly agree that new railway locomotives should meet current emissions standards , you could argue that a diesel locomotive hauled train has far lower emissions per tonne hauled than the equivalent in the latest road trucks needed to haul a similar load, but I suspect that argument won't wash !

Regards, Radioman
  Upven Station Master

RTT_Rules:I See your smoky NRs and raise you H3 and H5 climbing out of Donnelly (starts at 7:45). Vid provided by "Greensleeves94". (I can't see any copyright claim so I assume it's OK to post it. I'll remove it if it isn't.)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti188XMh2U

OK, it's in Vic, but this raises the question of what happens to heritage operators? Sure, they'll probably get a waiver to run a tour, but how many? Will it be worth some NSW outfits starting new restoration projects if the loco(s) MIGHT only get permission to run once or twice a year?

Hmmm.....
ADB
I think in the future heritage trains, and heritage cars for that matter, will be required to purchase carbon offsets if they wish to use their heritage vehicles.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Hello All,

2 / it is noticeable that US railroads will not buy new diesel locomotives as they are far too expensive when equipped to the US equivalent Of Euro 4 emissions standards, hence GE selling its diesel locomotive division to Wabco, and developing an electric locomotive in lieu.

3 / whilst I broadly agree that new railway locomotives should meet current emissions standards , you could argue that a diesel locomotive hauled train has far lower emissions per tonne hauled than the equivalent in the latest road trucks needed to haul a similar load, but I suspect that argument won't wash !

Regards, Radioman
Radioman
Hi
I think you will fighting very much a loosing battle to say this


or any of these



https://youtu.be/Uti188XMh2U

Is cleaner than a fleet of these


Even if its technically true, the public at large in general won't believe it especially when the media go to images for coal power station pollution is actually the water vapor from the cooling towers, not the invisible mostly CO2 emissions up the stack. In addition the black soot from diesels engines is a well established known health risk and possible carcinogen and hence why Euro 5 emissions targets are going to basically push diesel engines out of the car industry over the coming 5-8 years.


According to this, the total Class 1 loco fleet in the USA plateaued around 10-15 years ago. Hence new purchases are only to replace retirements, not growth as freight volumes have been stagnate for many years. In addition locos made from the mid to  70's onwards are not too dissimilar to the locos made today in total HP etc and can typically be re-built, ie look at QR/QRN who basically has only bought 50 new mainline locos for the non-coal NG sector in 30 years, but rebuilt many more.

So provided the frame, bogies etc are all good, throw in a new/upgraded prime mover and modernise the cab and away you go.

However ever rising community expectations will see these old 2-stroke's, poorly maintained engines, faulty engines etc all emitting black sooty smoke side lined. These engines simply do not belong in the 2020's and its about time the railways were held accountable for their emissions otherwise whats the point the govt tightening the emissions targets on the national fleet if a few oil burners can destroy all that work running up Cowan Bank. It completely destroy's rails Env record and claims they are cleaner than road transport.

Sorry, but I simply don't understand how we can defend these smoke machines any longer.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT_Rules:I See your smoky NRs and raise you H3 and H5 climbing out of Donnelly (starts at 7:45). Vid provided by "Greensleeves94". (I can't see any copyright claim so I assume it's OK to post it. I'll remove it if it isn't.)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti188XMh2U

OK, it's in Vic, but this raises the question of what happens to heritage operators? Sure, they'll probably get a waiver to run a tour, but how many? Will it be worth some NSW outfits starting new restoration projects if the loco(s) MIGHT only get permission to run once or twice a year?

Hmmm.....
I think in the future heritage trains, and heritage cars for that matter, will be required to purchase carbon offsets if they wish to use their heritage vehicles.
Upven
Maybe, but I don't think the govt's focus is a few heritage trips a year or even a month. One superfrieghter to Brisbane will probably burn more diesel than a whole years heritage operations nation wide.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

3 / whilst I broadly agree that new railway locomotives should meet current emissions standards , you could argue that a diesel locomotive hauled train has far lower emissions per tonne hauled than the equivalent in the latest road trucks needed to haul a similar load, but I suspect that argument won't wash !
Radioman
It depends on which emissions you're talking about.

When it comes to the carcinogenic soot that blocks out the sun as the train goes past, old locomotives are far worse (in both absolute and per tonne) than the modern trucks on the road these days.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I smell a rat , ultimately I think this is a way to kill off diesel powered rail anything so that governments never have to face the cost of modern rail alignments in NSW . There's virtually zip votes in diesel powered rail services so no biggie - for governments .
If they are serious about exhaust emissions on rail then you can throw away all the diesel powered pass trains and ban steam totally in NSW .

Just for the record , the situation in the US is their Tier system of locomotive exhaust emissions and the current eco Nazi bent is NOx emissions not so much C02 .
The reason why GM and GE sold out of locomotive manufacture is because the big operators have so much surplus "power" and rebuilding dated units doesn't require them to comply with the latest Tier 4 standard . Actually they found that Tier 3 levels tend to be the best trade off of emissions vs fuel consumption . Tier 4 effectively makes rail diesel engines uneconomic to operate , they are highly complex unreliable and need lots of preventative maint to be workable . They also have a higher fuel burn rate than Tier 3 spec power assemblies . Many people question the logic - burn more fuel to be cleaner out the stack , yeah right .
Anyway the US operators can use fewer more capable AC diesels to run their trains than they could with medium power DC units like say SD40s .

Interesting times ...
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I smell a rat , ultimately I think this is a way to kill off diesel powered rail anything so that governments never have to face the cost of modern rail alignments in NSW . There's virtually zip votes in diesel powered rail services so no biggie - for governments .
If they are serious about exhaust emissions on rail then you can throw away all the diesel powered pass trains and ban steam totally in NSW .

Just for the record , the situation in the US is their Tier system of locomotive exhaust emissions and the current eco Nazi bent is NOx emissions not so much C02 .
The reason why GM and GE sold out of locomotive manufacture is because the big operators have so much surplus "power" and rebuilding dated units doesn't require them to comply with the latest Tier 4 standard . Actually they found that Tier 3 levels tend to be the best trade off of emissions vs fuel consumption . Tier 4 effectively makes rail diesel engines uneconomic to operate , they are highly complex unreliable and need lots of preventative maint to be workable . They also have a higher fuel burn rate than Tier 3 spec power assemblies . Many people question the logic - burn more fuel to be cleaner out the stack , yeah right .
Anyway the US operators can use fewer more capable AC diesels to run their trains than they could with medium power DC units like say SD40s .

Interesting times ...
BDA
No, I don't agree its a hidden agenda, its about compliance to modern standards and community expectations. Look at the videos of the smog locos, if that came out of any other industry smoke stack in any other industry they'd be marching in the streets.

I don't know, but I strongly suspect Tier is not about CO2 but particulate and heavy carbon emissions from un-burnt fuel which is the issue that I believe caught out Toyota as they were pumping fuel into the hot exhaust to try and burn off the remaining unburnt carbon, also what pulled up VW. Diesel emission soot is a known health hazard and hence the aging loco's emitting soot in suburban areas should be banned.

EDIT: see below US tier standards link, note CO2 is not mentioned and the focus is on HC (un burnt fuel), NOX and Particulate.
It also applies to some degree to re-built locos.

Regarding Tier one locos as it apples to Australia's older locos that will be affected by the rules, the issue is how many would even comply to this loose standard due to poor maintenance?

https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php

Tier 3-4 Standards
The 2008 regulation strengthened the Tier 0-2 standards for existing locomotives, and introduced new Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards:

Tier 0-2 standards—More stringent emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured,
Tier 3 standards—Near-term engine-out emission standards for newly-built and remanufactured locomotives. Tier 3 standards are to be met using engine technology.
Tier 4 standards—Longer-term standards for newly-built and remanufactured locomotives. Tier 4 standards were expected to require the use of exhaust gas aftertreatment technologies, such as diesel particulate filters and urea-SCR. However, some commercial locomotive engines were able to meet Tier 4 standards without aftertreatment.

Note2: China has basically converted its entire heavy road vehicle fleet to CNG to eliminated particulate and HC emissions.
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ever since I heard about these tier 3 and 4 loco standards, I wondered when Australia would jump on the band wagon. Surly the rail indistry fully knows and if on the ball has planned for it. They use the existing locos as much as possible until they are not allowed. I do see them dismissing the 100 trucks combine emission vs 2 locos emission standards comparison being ignored.

Yes seeing ht eold locos work will be a future thing - but wait that future is catching us now. Time to really think.

Like Seeing the end of Holden, my brother and I have talked about  that for over a year. It's now to occur.  Seeing  stricter emission standard, yep thought so.

Regards,
David Head
  ADB Locomotive Driver

Every other industry is required to clean up its act over time as standards are raised, why not rail?

As the loco's age the engines can be replaced with more efficient cleaner burning engines.

I doubt very much seeing locos exceed 40-50 years in commercial operation will be a common occurrence, perhaps the lack of Env controls in the past has allowed this to occur rather than simply phased out.

As many of these engines are used in peak season type service and banking engines where its not viable to have a $5m loco I think there should be wavers applied for their limited use to certain tasks and locations provided the engines are maintained which in many cases in teh various video's its clear they haven't been and for me this is the biggest issue. The EPA should be placing random engine emission monitoring equipment on the locos.

I don't think its political point scoring, I think its very much about time. Some of the locos's I've seen going through the suburbs over the years the operators should have been hit with steep fines with black soot being pumped into peoples back yards. There are somethings you just don't do and the operators have got away for far too long.
RTT_Rules

When I said "political point scoring", I meant that of Jason Ferguson, and the Daily Telegraph "journalist", who if he had been worth his salt would have at least looked up SSR beforehand on wikipedia, noted the average age of the SSR fleet and come back at Jason Ferguson with something like "Well, isn't it time to upgrade your fleet?". Instead we get the "lost jobs" boilerplate, and no discussion at all of the pollution issues involved. But that's agenda-driven mainstream journalism today.

Though I as a gunzel would be sad to see a lot of the old locos go, I agree with you that "black soot" (and it sounds like this is the EPA's issue, rather than carbon emissions) "being pumped into people's back yards" is unacceptable. Particularly as the housing "boom" is seeing more and more housing built alongside train tracks. Noise pollution is an issue too. We might have no problem listening to an old diesel you can hear for ten minutes before you see it, but non-gunzels, not so much.

Having said that, I definitely don't want to see rail in general crippled, or SSR go out of business. Hopefully dropping in newer engines, better maintenance regimes (case in point: that "3 NRs" video - first two NRs are smoking, third one isn't), or common-sense waivers for things like reserve (bumper grain) engines, would ensure a lot of the "less ancient" engines could soldier on.

PS. People seem to think heritage group diesels would get a pass, and point to steam as an example. But how much of a steamer's exhaust is pollutants, and how much is harmless steam?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

When I said "political point scoring", I meant that of Jason Ferguson, and the Daily Telegraph "journalist", who if he had been worth his salt would have at least looked up SSR beforehand on wikipedia, noted the average age of the SSR fleet and come back at Jason Ferguson with something like "Well, isn't it time to upgrade your fleet?". Instead we get the "lost jobs" boilerplate, and no discussion at all of the pollution issues involved. But that's agenda-driven mainstream journalism today.

Though I as a gunzel would be sad to see a lot of the old locos go, I agree with you that "black soot" (and it sounds like this is the EPA's issue, rather than carbon emissions) "being pumped into people's back yards" is unacceptable. Particularly as the housing "boom" is seeing more and more housing built alongside train tracks. Noise pollution is an issue too. We might have no problem listening to an old diesel you can hear for ten minutes before you see it, but non-gunzels, not so much.

Having said that, I definitely don't want to see rail in general crippled, or SSR go out of business. Hopefully dropping in newer engines, better maintenance regimes (case in point: that "3 NRs" video - first two NRs are smoking, third one isn't), or common-sense waivers for things like reserve (bumper grain) engines, would ensure a lot of the "less ancient" engines could soldier on.

PS. People seem to think heritage group diesels would get a pass, and point to steam as an example. But how much of a steamer's exhaust is pollutants, and how much is harmless steam?
ADB
I think with the older diesels in heritage operation they operate at lower power settings more than being flogged on a freight train, so the emissions should be far better. Again the route km per year and less likely hood running through the burb's will help. I personally don't want to see them rusting as a static display and hopefully this won't happen and I don't believe it will.

Yes, I used to watch the coalies arrive to Gladstone and leave. Diesels that sound like gas turbine engines, but quiet. Almost colourless exhaust etc a far cry from a 44 class being flogged up Cowan Bank.

I think if the older engines can continue in limited use for peak traffic in grain, but the rail industry needs to step up and do some maintenance, most of these smog machines didn't pump out so much soot in their younger days as you rightly point out on the NR's.


Going forward into the future,
I think we will soon see battery loco's being used as boosters, perhaps grabbing these old locos, ripping out the oil burner and installing a large battery of capacitor like used in Newcastle trams and then power used to climb the banks will be boosted battery locos. Perhaps plugged in between two other DEL's and thus receiving their regen power.

Should for what ever reason the battery loco is drained prior to a bank, then with the computer smarts, GPS tracking etc of today the DEL's prime movers rev up well in advance to recharge the battery to sufficient levels to climb the bank with the trailing load. The battery loco can also be used for acceleration etc.

This battery technology will ultimately drive down fuel consumption as well as help push out aging locos.
  DCook Junior Train Controller

I was hearing about some plan for the future of heritage steam locomotives which was to put batteries in the tender and heat up the water using an electric heater rather than producing emissions through the combustion of coal
  M636C Minister for Railways

If the NSW regulations really are the same as USA Tier III, that is good news for Progress Rail and bad news for UGL/Wabtech.

The Progress current locomotive design, the GT46C ACe meets tier III.
The UGL/Wabtec current design, the C44ACi does not meet tier III.

So the TTs and LDPs and GWAs all meet Tier III
The 92s, 93s, 5000/5020, 6000/6020 GWU, XRN (and so on) do not.

Wabtec do have export designs that meet Tier III using the GEVO-12 engine.
There are no FDL engines that meet Tier III and no conversion process.

It is not clear that GEVO-12 engines could be fitted to C44ACi locomotives and new larger radiators and air to air intercoolers would be needed, making the rebuild cost quite high.

82, 90, Q and FQ locomotives could be upgraded with a new engine and larger radiators.

Even the 81 class could be rebuilt with 12-710 ECO engines and new radiators.

But the NR class cannot be easily converted to meet Tier III.

Peter
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

If the NSW regulations really are the same as USA Tier III, that is good news for Progress Rail and bad news for UGL/Wabtech.

The Progress current locomotive design, the GT46C ACe meets tier III.
The UGL/Wabtec current design, the C44ACi does not meet tier III.

So the TTs and LDPs and GWAs all meet Tier III
The 92s, 93s, 5000/5020, 6000/6020 GWU, XRN (and so on) do not.

Wabtec do have export designs that meet Tier III using the GEVO-12 engine.
There are no FDL engines that meet Tier III and no conversion process.

It is not clear that GEVO-12 engines could be fitted to C44ACi locomotives and new larger radiators and air to air intercoolers would be needed, making the rebuild cost quite high.

82, 90, Q and FQ locomotives could be upgraded with a new engine and larger radiators.

Even the 81 class could be rebuilt with 12-710 ECO engines and new radiators.

But the NR class cannot be easily converted to meet Tier III.

Peter
M636C

It has surprised me that GE (and now Wabtec)/UGL didn't move to offer an Australian version of the South African ES40ACi 44-000 class. This narrow gauge GEVO has been in production since 2015 with 233 thus far produced. The South African model weighs 132-tonnes (suitable for Aurizon's narrow gauge network) and could almost certainly be offered in standard gauge and narrow gauge versions with or without higher horsepower ratings (dependent on emmission standards and cooling requirements) and higher axle loads. No doubt price, a focus on the less than stellar PowerHaul project and international competition in a constrained market were significant reasons UGL stuck with the FDL, but that was almost certainly with the knowledge that tougher emmission standards would be implemented by one or more authorities in Australia in the short or medium term.

Ultimately I think the ES40ACi will be the evententual platform Wabtec/UGL will work from, unless the three PN-owned PowerHauls prove themselves in longterm constant heavy haul service (they are now in regular service after three years of off-again on-again testing).
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

It has surprised me that GE (and now Wabtec)/UGL didn't move to offer an Australian version of the South African ES40ACi 44-000 class. This narrow gauge GEVO has been in production since 2015 with 233 thus far produced. The South African model weighs 132-tonnes (suitable for Aurizon's narrow gauge network) and could almost certainly be offered in standard gauge and narrow gauge versions with or without higher horsepower ratings (dependent on emmission standards and cooling requirements) and higher axle loads.
Sulla1
The problem with using GEVO engines in Australia (outside of Pilbara lines) is that it is too tall for the loading gauges here.

SCT investigated a GEVO option which they could use only on routes cleared for double stack containers (Adelaide-Perth and Parkes-Perth) but decided that they couldn't afford to have locos with that level of restriction on where they could operate.

Having said that, I definitely don't want to see rail in general crippled, or SSR go out of business. Hopefully dropping in newer engines, better maintenance regimes (case in point: that "3 NRs" video - first two NRs are smoking, third one isn't), or common-sense waivers for things like reserve (bumper grain) engines, would ensure a lot of the "less ancient" engines could soldier on.

PS. People seem to think heritage group diesels would get a pass, and point to steam as an example. But how much of a steamer's exhaust is pollutants, and how much is harmless steam?
ADB
I would support setting a date well in advance for the mandatory retro-fitting of particulate filters to older diesels reserved for limited heritage operations and seasonal grain trains.

I understand that it may decrease the heritage value in the eyes of some enthusiasts, but it shouldn't do so any more than putting electric lights on the front of a steam loco and a modern radio in the cab. I bet that far more enthusiasts would probably be proud that their beloved older locos would need just a minimal update to carry on for many years to come.

As for steam locos, it depends on whether the crew are driving professionally or showing off for photographers.

I was hearing about some plan for the future of heritage steam locomotives which was to put batteries in the tender and heat up the water using an electric heater rather than producing emissions through the combustion of coal
DCook
You wouldn't get very far.

Looking for the cleanest burning liquid fuel would be a better option. While it would not eliminate CO2 emissions, it would all but eliminate the other forms of pollution such as particulates.

Going forward into the future,
I think we will soon see battery loco's being used as boosters, perhaps grabbing these old locos, ripping out the oil burner and installing a large battery of capacitor like used in Newcastle trams and then power used to climb the banks will be boosted battery locos. Perhaps plugged in between two other DEL's and thus receiving their regen power.

Should for what ever reason the battery loco is drained prior to a bank, then with the computer smarts, GPS tracking etc of today the DEL's prime movers rev up well in advance to recharge the battery to sufficient levels to climb the bank with the trailing load. The battery loco can also be used for acceleration etc.

This battery technology will ultimately drive down fuel consumption as well as help push out aging locos.
RTT_Rules
Sounds like a lot of faffing around as you would need to fund the development of diesel-electric locos with a configuration to support said battery loco, certainly a massive WOFTAM.

A method which would be more realistic than taking power from a diesel-electric loco would be to have a battery loco which would be self-contained. Charging would be primarily from dynamic braking off its own traction motors and from shore supply, but would ideally have a modular layout that could allow the installation of either an optimised genset for additional charging (making it basically the rail equivalent of the BMW i3 electric car with range extender option) or a 25kV AC transformer to make it an electric-battery hybrid loco.

The question, regardless of whether the battery loco is part of a complex multi-loco hybrid system or self-contained, is whether it would be powerful enough to make a meaningful contribution to the efficiency of operations compared to using a diesel-electric loco as a banker and putting it offline after it has done its share of work on the route's major climb.

But an even better course would be a progressive rollout of 25kV AC electrification, run as a continuous program to ensure the expertise is not lost when the project finishes and the workers laid off. If Borat-land can electrify thousands of kilometres and haul freight with modern electric locos, Australia can too. Electric-battery locos or electric-genset hybrid locos (like the Stadler EuroDual/UKDual already in operation) would still have a place on a mostly electrified network, as they could be used for 'last mile' operations on stub lines and around terminals.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: